[Direct Auto Finance & PPI REclaim

[postggj]

I will draw up a particulars of claim for you to consider

 

We will go for breach of fiduciary duty on the commission payments

 

The claim will be for everything you have paid

 

What is the total balance paid to yes car, we then put on 8 % interest

[ollyhuk]

Wow!

 

The total paid on the 2 accounts without interest is £6223.77 on one and £15023.48 on the other.

 

Thats a total of £21,247.25!

[postggj]

This is going to take some serious research to get the case law bang on

 

You need to start studying Wilson v Hurstanger, and the meaning of the judgement, you will need to know it back to front

 

It will be a pleasure for me to get my teeth into this, we cannot jump the gun on this, there are a lot of people out there in exactly the same position as us

[ollyhuk]

Ok, I will start having a look. Do I reply to the e mail? Do I ask them to provide the statement of means?

[postggj]

Wilson v Hurstanger

 

A broker negotiating a loan was paid a fee by his consumer clients and a commission from the lender. Although the clients were told about the commission, the broker had breached his fiduciary duty because he did not disclose the actual amount. The lender was held liable to the borrowers as accessory to the broker's breach.

 

 

In your case, you were not even told about any commission payments, let alone how much

 

 

The reason why you are entitled to all payments is that the commission payment were added to the loan, things like the amount of credit ,APR, termination figure are then mis-stated, that results in a breach of the prescribed terms of the agreement, therefore invalidating the agreement

Edited May 31, 2013 by squaddie

[ukdarrenfan]

Please let me know how you get on. I will be watching with interest.

[ukdarrenfan]

http://www.cleggssolicitors.com/nottingham-solicitors/index.php?view=article&catid=35%3Apersonalinjuryandlitigation&id=154%3Aharrison&tmpl=component&print=1&page=&option=com_content

This is what worries me about using commission payments as a reason to claim.

[postggj]

Thanks for the link

 

DAF were the broker and the lender at the same time at point of sale,

 

THEY PAID EACH OTHER AT THE BORROWERS EXPENSE

 

no third party was involved

[ollyhuk]

I finally had a reply to the letter I had sent disputing their refusal to accept my claim..

 

I have been directed to the FOS website to download the questionnaire again! What a waste of time.

[dx100uk]

point out you already have sent it

 

I git that with a claim for someone

 

even sent the statements off

 

muppet had detached them from the claim pack

 

dx

[ukdarrenfan]

Time wasters!

[ollyhuk]

I had replied to DAF's original letter, and also contacted Provident.

 

This morning, after much cajoling I received the attached reply. Do you think its game over now, should I give up, or keep going?

 

Any advice would be much appreciated.

[dx100uk]

no its not dead

 

funny how they rely upon:

 

sections of the CCa act but fail to mention sec 56:

Consumer Credit Act Section 56. refers...

— (1) In this Act “antecedent negotiations ” means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer—

(a) conducted by the creditor or owner in relation to the making of any regulated agreement, or

(b) conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or

© conducted by the supplier in relation to a transaction financed or proposed to be financed by a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement and “negotiator ” means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.

 

 

and

 

yet again they 'merely speculate' that their processes were correct.

 

i'd await Postggj to comment further

 

dx

[ollyhuk]

Thanks dx - much appreciated

[postggj]

Seems DAF are getting a lot of PPI claims at the moment

 

That response has no legal substance and it is a complete nonsense. To be fair, i would probably do the same in their shoes. Give me a few days and i will construct a reply to show we are being reasonable and quote the relevant statutory acts and case law

 

If they then rebuff that, i will construct a POC for you to consider

[ollyhuk]

Thanks very much - I would really appreciate an appropriate response - brilliant

[postggj]

i will get working on it in a few days, i am having to finish of an essay at the moment that needs to be submitted by 12 pm on Friday

[ollyhuk]

No worries - I share the pain with essays!

 

Interestingly this letter came from Gatwick (all the others are usually postamrked Newport Gwent), so it seems as if DAF may still be operating out of Horsham.

[postggj]

More like a rented small business lot as a way of misdirecting flack

 

The Newport gwent angle is where they have their so DCA called Godebt/marlin where most of the yes car debts etc were sold to

 

MORTIMER CLERK SOLICITORS

 

Floor 3

16-22 Grafton Road

Worthing

West Sussex

BN11 1QP

[ollyhuk]

That makes sense.

 

At least I have a name at DAF, as well as the e mail now.

[ukdarrenfan]

I wonder what they will make of my letter then. What on earth makes them think they can allocate the deposit where they like and also question what it has to do with the misselling! At the very least it shows them up for the cheating bunch of thieves they were...It is a very daunting prospect having to take them to court, but it's the only step left.

[ollyhuk]

I agree with you entirely, the prospect of costs no longer scares me - I know what they did to me, its just getting them to accept that fact!

[ukdarrenfan]

Some of the things that they have written are actually total nonsense, but written in legal speak designed to put you off. As long as we have a watertight legal argument I hope we should be ok.

[ollyhuk]

Im glad someone else views it that way also - I do believe they are fighting a rearguard action and using legal terms and delyas in order to frustrate anyone that complains in the hope that they will just give up

[postggj]

Welcome Finance

Daf/Yes car

 

They were set up as a get rich scheme relying on peoples desperation, both business models failed eventually, and both are paying the price now

 

Welcomes parent company Cattles plc was a A FTSE 250 member and had been trading for nearly a hundred years, welcome brought them down. At one time their shares were listed at £4.00. when the news broke on financial irregularities, those shares fell to a penny

 

Private investors staked over £700 million pounds in the company, after settlement they received less than £49 million back as compensation

Edited June 19, 2013 by postggj